Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: socko.curt@uunet.uu.net Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: post if you like (article 2 of 6) Message-ID: Date: 21 Jun 89 03:18:31 GMT Lines: 91 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu writes: >Theologically I am a Calvinist. I believe in Original Sin. This >doctrine is taught in Gen, and I accept it. ... >... I find it very ironic that I, who believe the doctrine >that is being taught in Gen, am told that I am rejecting the Bible's >authority by so-called inerrantists who argue to their dying breath >about the literal reality of the story, but who reject the whole point >it is trying to make. At least it has been my experience that most >conservative Christians come from traditions that believe in free ^^^ >will, and therefore reject the concept of Original Sin that is being >taught here. It appears that belief in the literal accuracy of ^^^ >Scripture is not enough to guarantee that people will accept what it >is teaching. Yes, yes, I heartily agree! Many people on both sides get caught up in debates about whether or not Genesis is literal history, and then completely overlook the principles it teaches. The thing that confuses me here is the marked phrase, which implies that the concepts of Original Sin and free will are mutually exclusive. Perhaps my definition of Original Sin is wrong... I wrote down a definition from another article posted fairly recently: "the corruption that started with Adam and Eve is passed on such that each of us is corrupt". Free will is (at least as I've always heard it used) the ability in a given situation to say to God, "Yes," or to say to God, "No" (that is, to choose good or to choose evil). Given these definitions, I don't see that Original Sin and free will are mutually exclusive. In fact, they seem to deal with different things -- the former with the inherent condition of man and the latter with his capabilities for decision and/or action. So, like, what's the deal? Am I missing something? ------------------------ Curt McCorkle JOHN 3:16! uunet!littlei!socko:curt Go to hell OR littlei!donk!curt if you can't take a gift --T. Russack [We've got yet another ambiguous term. Free will has a number of meanings. In theological discussions it tends to be used in a technical sense that excludes the concept of original sin. The classical Augustinian position is that original sin so corrupted the will that it is impossible for the person to choose good. Of course he is physically able to do so. But because his will has been corrupted he never will. It is not enough for God to offer salvation, because the person would turn it down. God must through grace restore the person's will before he will even be able to accept anything God has to offer. This is the position that was taken by Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. (This particular wording is closer to Augustine than to Calvin. Augustine tends to emphasize that grace restores the true power of choice, whereas Calvin and Luther tend to emphasize that grace is "irresistible", not asking for any choice on our part. I think these accounts are consistent. Augustine is emphasizing our situation after grace has started acting on us, while Luther and Calvin emphasize its initial action, while our will is still hopelessly corrupt.) The opposing position is either that there is no original sin, or that it does not have quite this radical effect. Unless you really go to the other extreme, as in Pelagianism, the position is normally that our salvation depends entirely upon God's grace, but this grace is offered to us and we do have the freedom to accept or reject it. This is normally what is meant by free will. Depending upon the relative emphases on grace and human choice, this position is known as semi-Augustinian or semi-Pelagian. The more polite term for semi-Pelagian is Arminian, since Pelagianism is an extreme that everybody agrees is heretical. There were great theological battles in the 17th and 18th Century between the Augustinians, who in that particular incarnation were generally Calvinists, and the Arminians, whose most influential champion was probably John Wesley (founder of the Methodists). Early evangelicals in the U.S. tended to be Calvinists, but at some point (18th Cent?) this seemed to reverse. This reversal is still visible in church names such as "Free Will Baptists", the point being that early Baptists were Calvinists. It is certainly possible to conceive of free will as meaning simply the fact that we are physically capable of making a choice. In that case it does not contradict even the Augustinian concept of original sin. Similarly it is possible to conceive of an Arminian sort of original sin that leaves enough power of choice for us to accept a grace which is merely offered. Now that the vicious arguments have died down, I think most Christians recognize that grace is a paradox, and both sides of the paradox must be maintained. Thus ultimately it may be that we should use concepts of original sin and free will that are compatible with each other. However I don't think that's not the sense in which they have been used historically. --clh]